Crossing the Jordan into the Inner Meaning [New Church, Open]

Spirit and Life Bible Study ^ | Wed Nov 28, 2012 | Rev Dr Johnathon Rose

[DaveMSmith]

Everything in the Old Testament history leads up to the crossing of the Jordan, and yet the way the story is told in Joshua 3 and 4 has major inconsistencies and problems. Is there another way to read it?

Can the Bible be taken literally?

[Natural Law]

"It’s not the purgatory the Catholic church teaches about where people are supposedly suffering to pay for their sins."

First, I seriously doubt you have spent the significant time or effort critically studying the teachings of the Church necessary to permit you to make an authoritative statement as to what the Church does or does not teach so I would have to characterize your response as knee-jerk. Secondly, even if you had you would not be qualified to dissect a mystery called Purgatory.

The purgation of our sins by a loving God after we have exhausted the opportunities for repentance in this life time is not dependent upon what we call it or how we try to construct its mechanics. It happens and that is all we need to know. It is what we Catholics for want of a better word call Purgatory and what Calvinists call Perseverance of the Saints or OSAS.

Peace be with you.

[BlueDragon]

A perfect fit. "The glove does fit so you cannot acquit."

Said while attempting to justify bringing in an entire new ensemble to the wardrobe to match with that glove.

We don't see in the accepted Hebrew texts, applying something such as an indulgence towards others, nor do we see anywhere necessarily earning them for one's self, that upon principle will be applied to some sort of Celestial account to speed or ease cleansing to help make one fit for being in the presence of God in the hereafter.

It is not a principle we find, running as a thread, in the Old Testament. All else that Christ is recorded to have said and done, does however illuminate what the deeper meanings to the Law were really all about.

The glove you speak of can fit more than one hand. Cramming certain later hands into it in effort to say it was always of that household, can be shown when taken into brighter light, the glove itself to be a replica, but of a shade not matching the blood of Christ (whom takes away the sins of the world, as per John the Baptist).

LAter reasonings, ending with a legalistic "baptism washes away sins (but only that once, and not for all time for those who believe Christ the Messiah, not as an efficacious sealing)" leaves one reborn, but to soon after be dead in their sins once the letter of the Law revives, as Paul spoke of Romans 7

As supplement to understanding of baptism, and what can be better known of it, there is

John 13
8 Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.

9 Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.

10 Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.

11 For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean

this link speaks of more

So Jesus must further correct Peter and thereby give more insight into his scandalous act: A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you (v. 10). People would bathe before going to a special meal, but their feet would get dirty on the way since they wore sandals. Here, as in verse 8, Jesus is addressing Peter as an individual, but by implication he is also addressing each of the disciples. Jesus must wash him, or else he is not clean and has no share with him. What does this washing refer to? Some think it is a reference to his death, which will make possible a sharing in eternal life with Christ. The footwashing would then be a symbol of the cross (cf. Brown 1970:566). Others think that the bathing (v. 10) is the cleansing from sin on the cross and that the footwashing would refer to the forgiveness of one's daily sins (Carson 1991:465; Talbert 1992:192). Many, both in the ancient church (cf. Brown 1970:566-67) and today (for example, Oepke 1967a:305-6), note that the word wash (louo) is from a word family commonly associated with baptism (Acts 22:16; 1 Cor 6:11; Eph 5:26; Tit 3:5; Heb 10:22) and thus take this washing as baptism.

The refining fire itself is not negated. Yet it's existence does not equate to all the implications of RCC doctrinal "Purgatory". That invention is revival of law, all dressed up in smuggled clothing, pretending itself a portion of the otherwise seamless garment, even while obscuring that garment.

[Elsie]

It has nothing to do with what you or I "get".

Good; as I'd hate to miss out on something.

[Elsie]

Yeah, it’s not there and everyone knows it.

And, on the flip side...

If it WERE there, then SOMEone could show it!

[Elsie]

Secondly, even if you had you would not be qualified to dissect a mystery called Purgatory.

sigh...

---

NIV 2 Corinthians 1:13-14

13. For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand. And I hope that,

14. as you have understood us in part, you will come to understand fully that you can boast of us just as we will boast of you in the day of the Lord Jesus.

[metmom]

Secondly, even if you had you would not be qualified to dissect a mystery called Purgatory.

And you are?????

FOTFLOL!!!!!

You know, once someone knows something, it's not a mystery any more. The only mystery about it is how so many people can be duped into believing something that is not taught in Scripture.

The purgation of our sins by a loving God after we have exhausted the opportunities for repentance in this life time is not dependent upon what we call it or how we try to construct its mechanics.

What are we discussing here? Mormonism?

This is nonsense, this idea that God's forgiveness only kicks in after we've done all we can.

Scripture does not teach that either but rather all that's required for forgiveness to be granted is confession of the sin.

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

It is what we Catholics for want of a better word call Purgatory and what Calvinists call Perseverance of the Saints or OSAS.

Purgatory is taught to be a place of suffering after death to pay for sins committed and allegedly not forgiven. It is NOT the same thing as OSAS.

Of course, last I recall, you don't believe in hell either so it wouldn't surprise me in the least that you don't accept the current RCC teaching on purgatory.

[daniel1212]

Elsie: Some scripture of ancient origin are found in the Septuagint but are not present in the Hebrew.

This sentence refers to the Hebrew canon, as it and the list that followed is from the WP article on the Septuagint. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint)

Rasputin: Alas, given that they've found copies of several of those books in Hebrew that predate the Greek versions, that particular reasoning isn't worth much.

Your arguments here are as fallacious as what you used in attempting to support the apocrypha by the LXX. Being written in Hebrew is not the determinative basis for canonical inclusion, as there are many books in Hebrew that are not part of the canon, but the issue in this area is whether they were part of the body of Scriptures which the New Testament refers to as Scripture. The logic that being in Hebrew makes a book canonical is as untenable as it would if inclusion in the LXX determined that, which some Catholics try to argue.

The “several” apocryphal books that written in Hebrew are actually few, these being Ecclesiasticus, 1 Maccabees, a part of Judith, and Tobit, none of which were part of the Jewish canon, nor is there manuscripts evidence that the 1^st century LXX contained it.

The Catholic Encyclopedia (Canon of the Old Testament) affirms, “the protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.” “...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism.” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

British scholar R. T. Beckwith states, Philo of Alexandria's writings show it to have been the same as the Palestinian. He refers to the three familiar sections, and he ascribes inspiration to many books in all three, but never to any of the Apocrypha....The Apocrypha were known in the church from the start, but the further back one goes, the more rarely are they treated as inspired. (Roger T. Beckwith, "The Canon of the Old Testament" in Phillip Comfort, The Origin of the Bible [Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2003] pp. 57-64)

Manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries of the Christian era, and since in the second century AD the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint…there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century AD, are all of Christian origin.

Nor is there agreement between the codices which of the Apocrypha include...Moreover, all three codices [Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus], according to Kenyon, were produced in Egypt, yet the contemporary Christian lists of the biblical books drawn up in Egypt by Athanasius and (very likely) pseudo-Athanasius are much more critical, excluding all apocryphal books from the canon, and putting them in a separate appendix. (Roger Beckwith, [Anglican priest, Oxford BD and Lambeth DD], The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church [Eerdmans 1986], p. 382, 383; http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/01/legendary-alexandrian-canon.html)

Even if any new discoveries aren't considered, both books of Maccabees are known to have originally been written in Hebrew

As you never have documented anything here we must wonder who “knows” besides you that 2 Maccabees was written in Hebrew? The Jewish Encyclopedia say “unlike I Maccabees, the book known as II Maccabees was written in Greek.” (http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10237-maccabees-books-of#57)

and if the criteria is that books be originally written in Hebrew you better toss out the book of Danial along with the rest. I was originally written in Aramaic.

Since your premise is wrong then so is your conclusion, while that Daniel was originally written in Aramaic is only speculation. Only half (cps. 2 through 7) of the 12 chapters are in Biblical Aramaic, with the rest being in Biblical Hebrew (though Daniel used certain Persian and Greek words). More precisely, Daniel 1:1 - 2:4a-Hebrew language; Daniel 2:4b - 7:28-Aramaic language; Daniel 8:1 - 12:13-Hebrew language. (http://bible.org/seriespage/daring-believe-daniel)

The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Zondervan, 1990) says that the language of Daniel, in comparison with the Hebrew and Aramaic texts of the Hellenistic period, "prove quite conclusively to any scholar that the second-century date and Palestinian provenance of the Book of Daniel cannot be upheld any longer without violence being done to the science of linguistics." It is also argued that It adds that the serious mistakes of the Septuagint to render many Persian and Accadian terms, as the offices mentioned in Dan. 3:3, proves ignorance of words of the old past, already forgotten in the Hellenistic period, indicating that the Book of Daniel was written in the late 6th century BC.

If non-Catholics are honest about applying their professed "Hebrew origin" rationale they should also throw out Danial.

Again, since this is a misunderstanding on your part, it is that argument that is thrown out.

Accepting Luther's canon for the Old Testament doesn't make sense unless you also accept his views on the New Testament as well. So, Danial is gone due to not being originally written in Hebrew and Revelation would go for whatever reason Luther didn't like it.

This is another false premise, indicative of a Roman Catholic mindset being supposed of us. We do not uncritically accept whatever Luther taught, as if we were RCs in submission to the pope, and if we were then we would also place Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation apart at the end apart at the end, as Luther did when he published his New Testament in 1522, as per ancient tradition used for doubtful books and those of the second canon, not to be used for doctrine, which Jerome and others placed apocryphal book in.

Thus as your premise is wrong once again, so is your entire argument here and any other one that insists we follow Luther as if he was an infallible pope, rather than writings and truth claims being established as they were before there was a church in Rome.

Moreover, as documented, the premise that Luther acted a maverick and deviated from an indisputably settled canon is also wrong, as doubts and disagreements by Catholic scholars about books continued into Trent.

And as the Orthodox also disagree with Rome in their canon(s), based on Tradition, then they also must be attacked in like manner by RCs if the necessity of conformity with her in this matter is to be consistently upheld.

[metmom]

And as the Orthodox also disagree with Rome in their canon(s), based on Tradition, then they also must be attacked in like manner by RCs if the necessity of conformity with her in this matter is to be consistently upheld.

And that they won't do because they name the name of Catholic, even though doctrinally they have more in common with Protestantism than Catholicism.

[presently no screen name]

even if you had you would not be qualified to dissect a mystery called Purgatory.

So mysterious that it dropped off the pages of The Bible? As mysterious as LIMBO which is ANOTHER man made teaching of Catholicism that they dropped. Catholicsm, the religion Of The Mystery - they keep their sheep in darkness.

[Natural Law]

"For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand."

Show me where in Scripture it says that every single line written by St. Paul is applicable to ever other verse in Scripture in every genre by every other human author. Besides, if that verse did mean that everything was understandable by all why on earth would every Protestant church need a preacher to explain the Scriptures?

Peace be with you.

[Natural Law]

"You know, once someone knows something, it's not a mystery any more."

That may be true in your book club, but theologically speaking it is circular logic. If you understood Catholic teaching to the degree you would have us believe you would know a mystery is something beyond human understanding that is known by divine revelation and thus must be accepted with faith because reason alone cannot define it.

Peace be with you.

[BlueDragon]

Show me where in Scripture it says that every single line written by St. Paul is applicable to ever other verse in Scripture in every genre by every other human author.

???

"...As I approach any argument (not quarrel) I always thoroughly investigate the premises that the syllogisms are predicated upon. When I find them deficient or false I do not proceed to the posed conclusion because no truth can be based on a lie..."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2963547/posts?page=243#243

[BlueDragon]

If you understood Catholic teaching to the degree you would have us believe you would know a mystery is something beyond human understanding that is known by divine revelation and thus must be accepted with faith because reason alone cannot define it.

Ratzinger ...in speaking of the Portiuncula indulgence,

"we have to pass through the meanderings of history and theological ideas to something simple: the prayer by which we abandon ourselves and enter into the communion of saints, in order to cooperate with them in the excess of good compared to the apparent omnipotence of evil, knowing that in the end all is grace".

J. Ratzinger, Bilder de Hoffnung: Wanderungen im Kirchenjahr, Freiburg-Basel-Vienna 1997, p. 100.

The Historical Origin of Indulgences

[boatbums]

If you understood Catholic teaching to the degree you would have us believe you would know a mystery is something beyond human understanding that is known by divine revelation and thus must be accepted with faith because reason alone cannot define it.

Yet, for something that Catholics are supposed to be content with accepting by faith whatever mysteries that they are told to, it doesn't seem to prevent the magesterium from inventing additional "divine" revelation to accompany those mysteries, either.

If this idea of "purgatory" is really no different than the Protestant doctrine of Once saved/Always saved or the Perseverance of the Saints, and it is only a case of semantics, then why the need to invent special prayers, actions, fasts and time tables for "indulgences"? The very idea of an indulgence - "the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God's justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which remission is granted by the Church in the exercise of the power of the keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive and which means a more complete payment of the debt which the sinner owes to God." (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Also, the link says:

God alone knows what penalty remains to be paid and what its precise amount is in severity and duration. Finally, some indulgences are granted in behalf of the living only, while others may be applied in behalf of the souls departed. It should be noted, however, that the application has not the same significance in both cases. The Church in granting an indulgence to the living exercises her jurisdiction; over the dead she has no jurisdiction and therefore makes the indulgence available for them by way of suffrage (per modum suffragii), i.e. she petitions God to accept these works of satisfaction and in consideration thereof to mitigate or shorten the sufferings of the souls in Purgatory.

I read the not-so-simple explanations for which indulgences apply where and administered by whom and for whom and when and it does not at all sound like it just means the same thing as OSAS or perseverance of the saints. I (we) understand that it is through the blood of Jesus Christ that we are cleansed of ALL our sins and that we will not be judged according to our trespasses and sins but according to God's mercy and grace. Our "place of cleansing" is the cross of Christ:

When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. (Colossians 2:13,14)

To come on threads and castigate and ridicule others because they aren't explaining the "church's" doctrines correctly is all the more sublime when the person doing the castigating seems to have come up with his own interpretation of the doctrine that is no closer to the "official" definition than those he criticizes.

This is an example of my own assertion in another thread that the Catholic "unity" boasted of by some of her children may be a mile wide but it's only a half inch thick.

[count-your-change]

Belief in a purgatory just cannot fit with Christ’s sacrifice. It’s one or the other.

[Elsie]

Show me where in Scripture it says that every single line written by St. Paul is applicable to ever other verse in Scripture in every genre by every other human author.

Sorry; why quota for straw this month is already exceeded.

---

Besides, if that verse did mean that everything was understandable by all why on earth would every Protestant church need a preacher to explain the Scriptures?

You're kidding; right?

Romans 10:14

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?

John 6:45

It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.

[Elsie]

That may be true in your book club, but theologically speaking it is circular logic.

A fine example follows...

If you understood Catholic teaching to the degree you would have us believe you would know a mystery is something beyond human understanding that is known by divine revelation and thus must be accepted with faith because reason alone cannot define it.

[Elsie]

Somewhere, DMS is smiling; knowing that yet another thread of his making has descended into the non-heretics fussing with each other.

[BlueDragon]

I (we) understand that it is through the blood of Jesus Christ that we are cleansed of ALL our sins and that we will not be judged according to our trespasses and sins but according to God's mercy and grace. Our "place of cleansing" is the cross of Christ:

Yes, but with a caveat. Our own hardheartedness, or lack of forgiveness towards others, can severely limit if not cut us off entirely from true communion with Him.

[Alex Murphy]

The purgation of our sins by a loving God after we have exhausted the opportunities for repentance in this life time is not dependent upon what we call it or how we try to construct its mechanics. It happens and that is all we need to know. It is what we Catholics for want of a better word call Purgatory and what Calvinists call Perseverance of the Saints or OSAS.

ROTFL! Try again, if you dare.